Ellen Hawkes wrote a book in the early 1990’s about the lawsuit getting national headlines at the time regarding the Gallo family and the Ernest & Julio Gallo Winery in Modesto, California. I purchased and read her book titled, “Blood & Wine.” Between the book, newspaper articles and research that I conducted in various court files regarding the dispute, I noticed some similarities between the Gallo lawsuit and mine, most notably the mysterious entrance and raising of the defense doctrine, “res judicata.” I noticed other similar if not identical legal arguments as well as mutual players that were coincidental to both cases. I decided to contact Ms. Hawkes to see if either of us had information that could benefit the other. I sent a letter to her agent asking how I could reach her, providing my phone number in case she wanted to contact me. She did, in fact, call me and we talked for a few minutes. I told her that I was preparing a letter that I would send to her which would explain what it was that I thought were common to the two respective cases as well as information that I believed might be beneficial for her to know. Ms. Hawkes provided me an address to which I should send it.
My letter to Ms. Hawkes is long and detailed because I like my letters and legal documents to be as self-contained as possible. That is, I wanted them to contain as many of the fundamental and important points of the story as possible without straying too much from the purpose of the letter/document. Additionally, I knew that my legal ordeal had been and would continue to be long and arduous and perhaps my memory would fade over time. My memory has indeed faded over the years, in fact, decades, and my way of writing letters and putting together legal documents back in the day is now proving to be helpful. I had forgotten much of what is contained in my letter to Ms. Hawkes. It has been twenty years since I wrote it and three decades since my traumatic ordeal began. Nonetheless, with regard to the length of time that Berberian v. Berberian has now been in existence (lately, if only in my mind), I have to say, “who knew.”1
Now, as I read my letter to Ms. Hawkes, I can see that it is hard to follow. I can also see that I did, in fact, get carried away with details and enumerating what I believed at the time were meaningful and/or synchronistic events. Some happenstances, I merely listed in case they proved over time to be significant in some way. I could not determine at the time (and probably not too much better today) what was and was not important, although mutual to both cases. Therefore, I threw in the kitchen sink. I expected Ms. Hawkes to make note of the noteworthy items and then contact me to discuss them. Things mutual to Gallo v. Gallo and Berberian v. Berberian were the reason why I contacted Ms. Hawkes to begin with. Presumptive, but, as indicated above, I thought that the content of my letter might even help with some of the intriguing aspects of her story regarding the Gallo case which she had sold to Paramount Pictures.
Unfortunately, I would never hear from Ms. Hawkes again.2 Perhaps I scared her off, right off the bat, with such a monstrous letter and all of its Bates-numbered attachments. Or maybe someone else manipulated her off into the opposite direction.3 I know for a fact that prior to my making actual contact with the correct “Ellen Hawkes,” at least one San Francisco attorney knew (by my having made the mistake of sending an earlier version of the subject letter to said attorney’s wife, the wrong “Ellen Hawkes”) that I tried to contact Ellen Hawkes, the author, and he knew as well my reason for doing so. Such is discussed in my letter to Ms. Hawkes. When a “Brother” (lawyer) learns something of value about a legal case that he isn’t involved in, he or she advises the most advantageous attorneys to clue in who are involved in the case (obviously depending upon which side the information is most beneficial and/or the side which has some kind of connection to the “for-sale” attorney). In turn, the attorneys participating in the case who receive the information would owe the duty-bound Brother for future favors. (The assumption here is that someone such as Ms. Hawkes, who could garner real publicity for my case, is someone that the players would not want in my life. In my case, both sides would benefit equally. Neither side wants to be exposed for mutual conspiracy and collusion. Publicity, shining a light therein, of course, is the greatest threat to a conspiracy and its hidden agenda. In my legal case, publicity to The Brotherhood players is like showing Count Dracula the cross4)
One might say that I am making too much out of my (erstwhile) lawsuit. Giving it too much importance. That I’ve got delusions of grandeur. Probably true to a degree. However, anyone who looks closely at the documents posted within this exposé, cannot come to such a conclusion with much surety. The “coincidences” and synchronicity alone virtually make my case. All one has to do is look at the Timeline page for the evidence. Additionally, prior to the present suit, I had never sued anyone, at any time, at any place, in any way, for anything, period. The res judicata raised as a defense by opposing counsel in my litigation suggests that there is or was a “parallel case” in existence. And my attorneys paid it no mind.5 There was something going on out there, or something had gone on, in some legal venue that affected my lawsuit. Perhaps that curious “something going on” out there is better described as being in the “para-legal” world. It was an invisible res judicata-infected force affecting the people that came and went with regard to my case, some kind of “dark matter” that, in addition to my counsel, swallowed my puzzling lawsuit piece by piece and probably statute by statute into a legal “black hole” of some sort.6
Even though I find it embarrassing, I am posting my letter to Ms. Hawkes. Call me a madman if you will. But I think that I got the attention of some people in high places, not necessarily with the letter itself, but the story to which it is attached.
1 This case will never come to an end as long as I am investigating it. All of the players still know this. When I have enough knowledge regarding the truth based on facts in this matter as well as the money translated, transposed, and transferred therefrom, to satisfy the ravenous, if not insatiable, “curiosity” evident in this website/exposé, then perhaps the case will be over. But not until. 2 Ms. Hawkes expired on May 23, 2015. 3 I do not believe that the “tome” that I sent to Ms. Hawkes was the primary reason for her disappearance. I think that she was totally unknowingly manipulated away from any more contact with me. (Who manipulated her? Any Brother who had access to her. Any subject can be manipulated into a conversation with someone unaware of the hidden agenda by a skilled attorney. And then into the tangled web that unsuspecting someone gets weaved. This is how it works. At least in the world of us paranoids) Ms. Hawkes was not a Brother and would never have been allowed into the loop. Therefore, she gained nothing from declining what I had to offer her. But, by my fumble, that one Bay Area barrister gained access into the loop. He was a duty-bound Brother and the participating attorneys, an incestuous bunch, had to let him in. And I’m dead certain that he reaped the benefits. (“Sorry Ms. Hawkes. Even though it wasn’t really your fault, along with me, you lose. And by the way, there is much more intrigue in Berberian v. Berberian than Gallo v. Gallo. I have an interesting res judicata too. But it is based on something current and continuing, unknown, mysterious, and bizarre, rather than some phony document drawn up by some crooked lawyer and ratified by a crooked res judicata-rousing aroused judge, back in the 1930’s in order to screw the younger brother. As arrogant and cocky as this sounds, your book and movie-script would have been much sexier were it based on Berberian v. Berberian, the brothers Berberian and yours truly rather than Gallo v. Gallo and the Gallo brothers. And that is a fact”) 4 It is my firm belief that one of the reasons why it has been so impossible to get to the bottom of the hidden agenda examined throughout this website/exposé is that one of the many facets of said secret agenda is the existence of mutual players in both conspiracies. That is, the conspiracy involved in Gallo v. Gallo and the brothers Gallo and the conspiracy involved in Berberian v. Berberian and the brothers Berberian, nephew/son-Richard Berberian being materially relevant to the latter. There were same and similar deceitful tactics used in both cases by some of the same lawyers and judges. The mysterious res judicata doctrinewhich popped up in both matters is the star of both shows. Perhaps res judicata was raised in my father’s case wherever his venue is/was to be found. In fact, it’s almost a given, because my father’s matter was my matter and vice versa, or so Haig Berberian’s lawyers would like to say, and in essence, said. This is one of the meanings of res judicata, in fact the bottom line thereof. Whatever my father settled out in the legal world of the unknown, in so doing, unbeknownst to me, settled my matter. However, my take on this is that my father settled shit for me and therefore I settled shit. The real problem for the players is/was, the Brother barristers and Brother judges involved in both Berberian cases did not plan on me. They did not plan on engaging someone who had nothing to lose (except for a fortune). In particular, what they didn’t plan on was my will and drive in concert with whatever my type of intelligence might be to have accomplished whatever it is that has come to pass because of me. (I mean, three decades spent studying this matter culminating in this website. How smart is that?-Genius) And when I spotted and figured out the res judicata scams coincidental and common to both cases (and other fraudulent legal vehicles utilized) and divulged same in letters to some of the players involved in my case, I forced the Brothers on both sides of the two Berberian cases to come together. And they stopped me dead in my tracks. No one exposes the greatest Gallo “res judicata” secret. Certainly not Ellen Hawkes. She wasn’t close to being warm. And certainly not someone such as me, the loon, the mental case. Bombast regarding my gumshoe efforts?-Maybe. (The jury is still out with regard to me in conjunction with two scoops of crazy) But within Berberian Mystery Theatre, there is an abundance of evidence on which I have based my beliefs. Admittedly, a lot of what I say and do is predicated on intuition. All in all, I’m just hoping that one of these days one smart renegade attorney comes along, puts it all together like only a barrister Brother could do, and proves me right (and sane). To do this, he or she doesn’t have to be really smart. He or she has to be really brave. 5 Res judicata is the Latin term for “a thing adjudged.” Attorneys cannot and do not play fast and loose with this legal defense, because it points to a specific judgment barring a particular case (in this case, my case) from being prosecuted. It does not bar cases like mine. For one thing, there are no other cases like mine. And being that my suit is so unique, raising res judicata is all the more curious. And being that my attorneys, Laurence E. Drivon and Rudy V. Bilawski (both, of Stockton, CA), did not inquire about this defense, makes the situation exponentially more curious. And get this. The doctrine/defense, res judicata, was raised by Haig Berberian’s lawyers as his 13th Affirmative Defense on Friday the 13th (of July, 1984). Coincidence? 6 My case would not be mysterious at all were one in-the-loop attorney (and there are several dozen) to step forward and tell me the truth as to what happened in the matter. I am still waiting to hear from such an honest attorney. However, when it comes to Berberian v. Berberian, such an attorney does not exist. Actually, the concept of an attorney being “honest” died with a man named Abe.